New proposals for young drivers including raising the driving age to be discussed.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24485792
|
|
They have been "considering" this off and on for the last 15 years at least. Personally I am no more convinced now that it would work. Looking at my own children, especially the boys, I don't believe they were any more grown up, driving wise, at 18 than they were at 17 and they weren't bad considering others I have seen, including some of their friends.
|
|
A version of the report that I saw was "Full licence" at 18, implying a provisional period. When I learned to drive in Australia I went through this system of a provisional period of a year with a blanket 40mph speed limit and "P" plates mandatory. Any infringement of the rules was an automatic six months ban, (the police took your licence on the spot and returned it to the authorities). Obviously this would not work here as we do not have enough police on the road to enforce anything. This was many years ago and I do not know what their system is now. I am not going to hold my breath waiting for any changes here.
|
>> A version of the report that I saw was "Full licence" at 18, implying a
>> provisional period. When I learned to drive in Australia I went through this system of
>> a provisional period of a year with a blanket 40mph speed limit and "P" plates
>> mandatory. Any infringement of the rules was an automatic six months ban
Something similar still in force here, no full licence until after 18 and all sorts of restrictions on carrying passengers under 21 (I think). However insurance doesn't seem to be prohibitive - I saw a new BMW Z4 2.8i being driven by a learner only this morning.
Doesn't produce considerate or particularly competent drivers either from my observation.
|
|
they should stop at school till 18
|
|
Do you want to teach a class of 17 year old youths who don't want to be there?
|
|
That's why teachers are well paid for working a few weeks a year. It is bad enough when the little horrors escape during the many holidays. :-)
|
|
Ah, I see. So in Scotland they can vote, join the army, get married, but not drive?
|
Best I can say about the proposal is that it might get youngsters out to vote against any party committing to it.
Minimum supervision period of 100 hours compares with 40hrs (IIRC) for a private pilots license - much of that would be solo. Resrictions on passengers and 'night' curfew will reduce ability to work or do family errands. And how would the curfew work? Daughter and her b/f were diverted off route and heavily delayed returning from holiday. Are they supposed to park up at 23:00 and wait for first light?
My two are now 18 and 20. Daughter passed her test after 6 months, son took nearer a year, both starting witihn days of being 17. They got a lot of practice driving on family trips ie with their sibling in the car as well as supervising parent. Miss B did nearly all the off m/way driving on a trip to the Hebrides, everything from near m/way dual carraigeway to single track. As I read it the ban on carrying under thirites would have kaiboshed that.
|
>> Minimum supervision period of 100 hours compares with 40hrs (IIRC) for a private pilots license
Driving is far more dangerous than flying. Many more things to hit, much closer to your vehicle. Both hard and soft.
Last edited by: Alanović on Fri 11 Oct 13 at 11:03
|
>> Driving is far more dangerous than flying. Many more things to hit, much closer to
>> your vehicle. Both hard and soft.
>>
And when you're flying a plane you KNOW any mistake will probably be your last. Nothing like the certainty of instant death to concentrate the mind.
|
|
SA - They will be next year.
Last edited by: Rudedog on Fri 11 Oct 13 at 12:58
|
The report says they will be banned from carrying any passengers under 30.
I fail to see the logic of this; I can understand a stipulation that the driver be accompanied by another qualified driver over 30, but banning under-30's altogether? It's unenforceable.
Methinks the Beeb have got their facts wrong here.
|
While the subject is up for consideration, I understood from a news report that the driving age was unlikely to change.
Chances are this is an exercise in making people speak to find out opinions etc.
|
|
It's no more unenforceable than the requirement to have a qualified driver present if you are a learner. What the government would like to reduce is the number of serious accidents involving cars carrying multiple young people that often occur at night. There is no doubt that young people often egg one another on to drive faster and take more risks or that young driver often drive to impress their mates or girl friend.
|
The 22:00 - 05:00 curfew will cause a lot of problems.
Be interested to see what the Government reaction will be to all the youngsters who find that many jobs become impossible to get to or from and will therefore remain unemployed. As an example my niece works four shifts a week at a country house hotel restaurant just over 25 miles from her home, her shifts finish, like most in catering, when they finish, for her regularly after midnight. She would then face the dilemma, break the law and drive home, get a cab at whatever horrendous cost that would be in the middle of the countryside after midnight, almost certainly uneconomic given the level of wages paid in that industry, or, give up the job.... Fortunately this won't have any effect on her but I can see it having a bit of an impact on jobs available to youngsters in the future.
All I would say on this is that I think any restrictions should apply to any novice drivers regardless of age, I feel that inexperience is a greater factor than age. The fact that most people learn to drive at an early age distorts the stats to make it look like age is the major factor whereas I would argue that it is lack of experience. My wife has been driving for over 30 years but has rarely driven on a motorway and is very nervous on the rare occasions that she has to, purely because she hasn't got regular experience to bolster her confidence in that environment.
I would argue that power restrictions for new drivers, as is in force for motorcycles, would be more effective; if we must have some night time restriction then make it along the lines that the driver can travel alone unless at least one of any passengers carried is of an relevant age and driver experience. A total ban is overly draconian IMHO.
Last edited by: Cockle on Sat 12 Oct 13 at 15:53
|
>>A total ban is overly draconian IMHO
Idiotic. There are many worse drivers on the roads than the majority of those who will be affected.
They won't be materially older when their ban ends, and it will just delay them in gaining experience.
In the mid 60s when there were no more than a third of the cars on the road there are now, there were 4 times the number of road fatalities. So by my reckoning the fatal accident rate of young drivers now, if it is 4 times the average, is still about 1/3 of what the average was then.
Better training, maybe the compulsory equivalent of Pass Plus post-test, is where I would start. My son said he got far more out of Pass Plus than he did from his driving lessons.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 12 Oct 13 at 18:23
|
Rather than raising the age limit, which seems somewhat abitrary given that I'm sure we have all encountered immature 20 year olds and conversely some mature 17 year olds. i'd be more in favour of raising the skill levels required to pass the test while concurrently introducing some distraction mitigation caveats.
Something like a selection from the following menu,
Maybe adding a compulsory skid pan training course which must be passed before a full licence is issued.
An absolute zero alcohol tolerance for drivers in their first 3 years of holding a licence.
A ban on telephone use of any kind in a vehicle (with the engine running) for new drivers.
A ban on the use of car radios or other entertainment systems in the moving vehicle until the driver has enough ( again maybe 3 years ? ) experience to cope with such distractions.
A "new driver" sticker to be displayed front and rear for the first 3 years. ( "N" plate to replace "L" plate sort of thing )
Speeding tickets to carry an automatic minimum one month ban in the first 3 years of holding a full licence.
Something like that anyway.
|
Some good ideas for discussion there Runfer. You should be on the committee.
Zero tolerance on speed limits for new drivers might actually inculcate a lifelong habit and produce a new generationn of compliant drivers.
They'll have to raise the speed limits at the same time though, or we older unindoctrinated ones will never get anywhere.
I still like the idea of post-test training though - most of us would say we learned to drive after we passed the test.
Tuning that rapid after-test learning experience with a bit of "advanced" stuff, especially observation, could produce new drivers who are actually better than the old ones - a much better objective than just trying to stop them killing themselves by fencing them in.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 12 Oct 13 at 19:06
|
>> Some good ideas for discussion there Rattle. You should be on the committee.
And you have been thrown off. Cant even get their names right.
|
>> >> Some good ideas for discussion there Rattle. You should be on the committee.
>>
>> And you have been thrown off. Cant even get their names right.
What?
Who are the Rolling Stones?
|
>> >> >> Some good ideas for discussion there Rattle. You should be on the committee.
>> >>
>> >> And you have been thrown off. Cant even get their names right.
>>
>> What?
>>
>> Who are the Rolling Stones?
I believe they are a popular beat combo, m'lud
|
There is no need to change the law in anyway at all. We simply need to have people in place to enforce the current laws.
We could get loads of extra real police on bikes and in cars and keep them out on the road enforcing road laws. In fact, we could get them into groups and call them something simple, like Traffic Units for example.
They could spend their time driving around checking and pulling cars, issuing tickets and enforcement notices, and generally improving both crime clear-ups and road behaviour.
I'm surprised nobody has ever thought of such an idea.
|
|
You been on the sauce again Mark? :)
|
|
Saturday afternoon with barbecue weather FC, what can I say?
|
>> Maybe adding a compulsory skid pan training course which must be passed before a full
>> licence is issued.
>>
>>
>>
That would dramatically increase the accident rates. It's one thing teaching experienced drivers how to control a skid because they'll use it to to get themselves out of trouble. Show Wayne Chave how to get a car into a controlled drift and you'll meet him one night when he's showing off his "skills" to a Corsa full of mates as he approaches you on a blind bend.
Some things we have to accept - accidents will continue to happen and inexperienced drivers will have the highest proportion simply because they are inexperienced. Raise the standard of training and testing as much as you want (and I was an ADI through the period when the test changed out of all recognition) and it won't make a blind bit of difference, young men will always push their abilities to the limits long before they understand what those limits are. That's human nature and you'll never change that.
As Z says, we already have one of the lowest fatality rates in the world and we have to accept it has probably reached bottom by now. The only thing that will improve it is the thing that has steadily reduced death and serious injury over the decades - better safety technology.
|
>>That would dramatically increase the accident rates
Really? Maybe you're right but it sounds about as plausible as deliberately not showing learner drivers where the light switches are so they won't feel confident to drive after dark to me. Surely it's better to have new drivers who have better developed car control skills than not? Surely we don't have to reduce everything to suit the lowest common denominators of society? The driver you mention will still behave like an idiot with or without training. With it he might just be able to allow himself and those in his vicinity to survive a little longer anyway.
|
|
I doubt if skid control would have any positive impact on teenage accident rates. Pembrokeshire has quite a high death rate among young drivers and almost all occur on NSL single carriageway roads. Head on into another vehicle or off the road at high speed is the most common cause and there simply isn't the space available to control a car once the point of no return has been reached. I would suspect most teenage fatalities happen in similar circumstances nationally.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Sat 12 Oct 13 at 22:27
|
|
i would of thought the cost of insurance would be enough to make the yoof drive a bit careful like?
|
|
Unfortunately I doubt if insurance is at the top of (or even in) their priorities when they are having "fun" with a car full of mates.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 13 Oct 13 at 08:48
|
>> I doubt if skid control would have any positive impact on teenage accident rates.
>>
It won't stop the exuberance of youth but it will teach people how to drive their cars when the weather turns in the winter months. It's not all about getting the max. drift out of your rear wheel drive BeeEmm.
There should be a list of mandatory skills of which the driver must show basic competency before the test is taken.
Car control in snow and ice - a skid pan to be used when there's no real ice and snow around.
Night time driving.
Dual carriageway and Motorway driving under instruction. Not really practical in some rural areas (Wales & Scotland) but something should be done rather than the system today where an untrained driver can be let loose on a three lane Motorway.
There are others but that would be a start. Rather than slowing everything down to the lowest common denominator, raise the skills up to a national accepted limit.
|
>>
>> There are others but that would be a start. Rather than slowing everything down to
>> the lowest common denominator, raise the skills up to a national accepted limit.
>>
You miss the point. Young men have accidents because they are inexperienced and don't know their limits. Teach them to drive at 30mph and they'll crash at 40, teach them to drive at 70 and they'll crash at 80. Skills in car control are not the problem, youthful recklessness is and we've all been there. Most of us survive after a few brown trouser moments, some don't.
|
>> >>
>> >> There are others but that would be a start. Rather than slowing everything down
>> to
>> >> the lowest common denominator, raise the skills up to a national accepted limit.
>> >>
>>
>> You miss the point. Young men have accidents because they are inexperienced and don't know
>> their limits.
No you have missed the point, by a million miles. Thats not why young men have accidents. They have accidents because testosterone makes them feel invincible, they have no sense of risk, and they want to preen and show off.
Put them on a skid pan at an early age, and you will have young men drifting cars round the roundabout at the end of your high street in no time. In effect, give them skills and they will abuse them.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 13 Oct 13 at 10:21
|
My two little cherubs hit 17 in just over a week - JEEEEZ! The really seem so young to take on the the roads.
Anyway, driving and cars are at the top of the agenda. I have taken them to a very large car park (privateish) and given them the opportunity to do some of the basics.
You can rest assured that when we have some snow and ice I will take them and give them the opportunity to experience the causes of skidding and how to have some chance of getting it back.
As for drifting, well to do that you need a good RWD car and most of the cars the young drive these days are FWD :)
Its the young chavs that see themselves as a 'bit tasty' behind the wheel. But we have always had this its nothing new, we went through it. I've got to admit I was a right hot head at that age. Whatever restrictions you place will not deter that element there will always be chancers.
|
>> But we have always had this its nothing new, we went through it. I've got to admit I was a right hot head at that age.
Quite Fc. Like many others (but not all - people uninterested in cars drove carefully and boringly) I used to push my luck when young. But every near-miss and every bit of untidy cornering was a valuable lesson, taken in, analysed and remembered. In the end it made me more or less competent. I never came to real grief.
There were others though with a less intellectual approach. Very bad things could happen, people got killed or maimed.
These days traffic density, cameras and general attitudes make the whole thing riskier. That's no bad thing. I worry about my descendants. One has just turned 17 and wants to learn to drive. She's a fairly sensible girl but one can't help worrying about their friends. However sensible you are at that age, you won't think twice about accepting a lift home in the legendary overloaded Corsa driven by some overexcited boy who may have taken the edge off his reactions with substances.
|
>> No you have missed the point, by a million miles. Thats not why young men
>> have accidents. They have accidents because testosterone makes them feel invincible, they have no sense
>> of risk, and they want to preen and show off.
>>
Speaking as someone who was involved in a single vehicle accident resulting in a fatality when I was 21 I couldn't agree more.
The three of us involved were actually all very experienced drivers, had passed our tests not long after 17th birthday, and were all in lines of work where we were driving a fair few miles a week each, in fact I was commuting between Bristol to Reading each day around that time.
The single factor that resulted in that accident was boys and their desire to push the limits
|
>> No you have missed the point, by a million miles. Thats not why young men
>> have accidents. They have accidents because testosterone makes them feel invincible, they have no sense
>> of risk, and they want to preen and show off.
Pretty close to the bulls-eye. Personal experience is as follows:
Miss B is now nearly 21 and passed her test in June 2010. She has good observation, drives to prevailing conditions and is willing to take tips from Mum/Dad about how to improve. She is a bit lacking in confidence to, for example, place car accurately in a parking space, partly 'cos she's 5 feet nothing and knows that limits her view. Compensates by careful placing of mirrors and calling for an observer if needed. She had one accident when intimidated by a large tractor on a narrow bridge she scraped the Xantia's bumper on bridge wall - £300 to sort out.
The Lad is 19 and passed his test a year ago. Had more lessons than his sis and struggled with parent supervised practice 'cos it too easily turned into conflict - our fault he didn't understand!!. Even with us in car he drives too fast and appears to lack observation (I suspect he has seen hazards but regards them as a challenge). Hints and tips are not welcome - he's passed his test and that's that! He does however consistently reverse into drive in one smooth manoeuvre - but one day he'll c*ck it up and hit other car/a bike/lawnmower he's not seen on drive. He's got away with it so far but when he does it'll be thousands....
Conversation with others with both sons and daughters suggests that our experience is not unique!!
|
They have accidents because testosterone makes them feel invincible, they have no sense
>> of risk, and they want to preen and show off.
>>
So testosterone-lowering drugs, aka bromide in the tea, would be the simplest solution?
|
Absolutely. There are lots of comparatively unskilled drivers out there who don't have accidents and are safe drivers because they know their limits. When you are 17 you think you can do anything and are invulnerable. You don't have any limits.
|
I defer to your knowledge here RR but I agree anyway - it's a temperament and maturity thing as well as skills and experience.
It's hard to argue against better skills but perhaps the ones to focus on at that stage are advanced (by most driver's standards) observation and positioning, that is teaching to be aware of and avoid danger rather than giving them more confidence in their super powers. Prevention is better than cure.
Most drivers fail to do anything useful in a decent skid anyway and few have a clue on snow and ice but they don't kill themselves, they just block the roads up.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 13 Oct 13 at 10:35
|
>> I defer to your knowledge here RR but I agree anyway - it's a temperament
>> and maturity thing as well as skills and experience.
>>
>> It's hard to argue against better skills but perhaps the ones to focus on at
>> that stage are advanced (by most driver's standards) observation and positioning, that is teaching to
>> be aware of and avoid danger rather than giving them more confidence in their super
>> powers. Prevention is better than cure.
>>
Or, you get where we are today limiting the A1 to 50MPH because observation skills are poor, road design is poor, Highways Agency will not implement variable speed limits for the times when the road is genuinely busy so implement a blanket 50MPH - I am referring to the A1 western bypass in Gateshead. Imagine a permanent 50MPH limit on the M25 between the M3 and M40.
>> Most drivers fail to do anything useful in a decent skid anyway and few have
>> a clue on snow and ice but they don't kill themselves, they just block the
>> roads up.
>>
...and cost the economy millions in the process if you believe the headlines when there are three snowflakes in the UK.
|
"and few have a clue on snow and ice"
I've heard about these "winter tyres". Anyone got any views?
;-)
|
|
They're not much use when Lygonos' mate in Edinburgh is driving round on the metal bands.
Last edited by: gmac on Sun 13 Oct 13 at 11:03
|
I don't think anyone is blind to, or ignorant of the fact that some young people are disposed to take risks and sometimes stupid ill-informed ones while driving. But, the argument that not teaching them useful, possibly life saving skills discourages that risk taking is frankly flawed. The show off / idiot driver will still show off or be an idiot, whether or not they have been taught to a more advanced level and the upside is there would be the others who would simply be better, safer drivers all their lives if given that extra training at an early stage.
Not training people to be as safe / skilled as possible is a bit like arguing that we shouldn't teach sex education so that young people won't be tempted to sleep with each other.
Breaking news ! They're going to do it anyway.
Should we not at least attempt to ensure that as many young drivers as possible have greater skills than they do now?
I'm not dismissing the downsides by the way, and it's always going to be a bit of a grey discussion but I'm pretty sure I know which side of this debate I'm on.
Ignorance may be bliss but knowledge is power.
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Sun 13 Oct 13 at 12:17
|
>> Should we not at least attempt to ensure that as many young drivers as possible
>> have greater skills than they do now?
It happens in Finland, though I'm not sure whether it decreased the number of skid induced accidents after the training was introduced, but the drivers who had received it were more confident about their abilities.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094406
|
All i can say is, that if it were me back in my youth, and someone taught me to drive in snow, I would just drive faster in snow.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
And the sex education thing is a bad analogy. Sex education is aimed at STOPPING kids having sex, not how to do it better. Sex education didn't work back in my youth and it don't work now.
|
The problem, as I see it, is the test has been dumbed down to let those who have no interest in driving get a licence to move around.
If you're not interested in something and only do it because it's a means to an end you're probably not going to put much effort into it whether it is driving, cooking or whatever. Given we are bombarded with speed kills, safety, safety, safety etc... do we really want people behind the wheel of 1 tonne plus machinery who can't even be bothered to look at the tyres occasionally or check fluids ?
|
>> The problem, as I see it, is the test has been dumbed down to let
>> those who have no interest in driving get a licence to move around.
>>
>> If you're not interested in something and only do it because it's a means to
>> an end you're probably not going to put much effort into it whether it is
>> driving, cooking or whatever. Given we are bombarded with speed kills, safety, safety, safety etc...
>> do we really want people behind the wheel of 1 tonne plus machinery who can't
>> even be bothered to look at the tyres occasionally or check fluids ?
There is nothing new there. Driving has only ever been "transport" for the majority of people for a large number of years.
|
>> There is nothing new there. Driving has only ever been "transport" for the majority of
>> people for a large number of years.
>>
Don't you think that's what needs to change then ? As cars have become more reliable and require less maintenance people have become blasé to the point they don't even bother to look any more.
How many times when you're out and about do you see people more engrossed in their phone, shaving, applying make-up, reading than actually concentrating on the job in hand. that side of it has become worse in my opinion.
Last edited by: gmac on Sun 13 Oct 13 at 14:35
|
>> Don't you think that's what needs to change then ?
No, As I said further up the thread, our road safety record indicates nothing needs to be changed.
|
|
To get that record they've dropped speed limits on roads which, with better driving, could have remained at the original limit in my example up thread, the A1.
|
>> To get that record they've dropped speed limits on roads which, with better driving, could
>> have remained at the original limit in my example up thread, the A1.
I use the bottom 150 miles or so of A1 about 6 times a month. The speed limits are perfectly acceptable and in my opinion set at the right pace in the right places for the right reasons for any driver.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 13 Oct 13 at 14:49
|
>> The problem, as I see it, is the test has been dumbed down to let
>> those who have no interest in driving get a licence to move around.
>>
>>
You are joking.
I can assure you that anyone who took a test prior to 1999 went through a very easy testing system in comparison to today.
|
I took my bike test in 2002 after they introduced the written test before you could go out on the road for training for the test. OK, I have not done the road simulator. It wasn't rocket science. You could buy a book with all the questions and answers in for the written test.
In other countries getting a car licence is along the same idea of a pilot licence where you have to do so many hours training at specific disciplines before you can take the test.
Last edited by: gmac on Sun 13 Oct 13 at 14:47
|
>> I took my bike test in 2002 after they introduced the written test before you
>> could go out on the road for training for the test. OK, I have not
>> done the road simulator. It wasn't rocket science. You could buy a book with all
>> the questions and answers in for the written test.
>>
>> In other countries getting a car licence is along the same idea of a pilot
>> licence where you have to do so many hours training at specific disciplines before you
>> can take the test.
Those other countries usually have considerably worse accident statistics.
|
That's the problem with stats.
Road fatalities / 100,000 inhabitants / year
San Marino 0
Maldives 1.9
UK 2.75
Road fatalities / 100,000 motor vehicles
UK 5.1
Iceland 5
Malta 4.6
Total fatalities
UK 1754
Austria 522
Ireland 161
Netherlands 640
|
>> That's the problem with stats.
>> Road fatalities / 100,000 inhabitants / year
>> San Marino 0
>> Maldives 1.9
>> UK 2.75
>>
>> Road fatalities / 100,000 motor vehicles
>> UK 5.1
>> Iceland 5
>> Malta 4.6
>>
>> Total fatalities
>> UK 1754
>> Austria 522
>> Ireland 161
>> Netherlands 640
oh wow you really had to scour the globe to get those "better than the uk" crappy examples.
the Maldives? millions of miles are driven in the Maldives now aint they. Mind you, probably no more than the thousands of miles of fast roads in San Marino.
What a waste of bandwidth. I'm gonna ask my ISP for some money off.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 13 Oct 13 at 17:08
|
It wasn't about "better than the uk" crappy examples it was about relying on crappy stats.
The first two are pretty poor examples, the only one that counts is the actual number of people who die. Looking at those stats, we should be sitting the Ireland driving test.
|
>> oh wow you really had to scour the globe to get those "better than the
>> uk" crappy examples.
>>
>> the Maldives? millions of miles are driven in the Maldives now aint they. Mind you,
>> probably no more than the thousands of miles of fast roads in San Marino.
>>
>> What a waste of bandwidth. I'm gonna ask my ISP for some money off.
From the same source
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
Fatalities per billion vehicle kilometres -
UK 3.6 (lowest quoted)
Netherlands 5.6
Norway 6.1
Germany 7.2
USA 8.5
Belgium 10.8
Poland 13.5
Greece 17.4
UAE 310 (they really enjoy their motoring).
Disgraceful performance by USA with all that room to rattle about in.
So we don't really have a problem - and whilst anything is capable of improvement, it's hard to see the case for doing it by curtailing the freedom of good citizens.
|
Whilst the death rate is less than other countries it doesn't mean we don't have a problem and there nothing to say we could not halve the current rate.
You can' t just say that around 2000 deaths a year is an acceptable amount. That's an awful lot of grief and misery.
,
|
>> Whilst the death rate is less than other countries it doesn't mean we don't have
>> a problem and there nothing to say we could not halve the current rate.
>>
>>
>> You can' t just say that around 2000 deaths a year is an acceptable amount.
>> That's an awful lot of grief and misery.
Given the number of motoring miles, the number of cars on the road, its nothing higher than noise. It cant be reduced without considerably inconveniencing the huge majority.
It should therefore be left as a bench mark, and only revisited if it changes.
2000 deaths a year is peanuts.
(waits for the "well it may be peanuts to you - what about = blah - well blah nothing its still doesn't alter the facts its peanuts)
|
|
1754 deaths in 2012, an astonishingly low figure in view of the miles covered. Life has it's dangers but we can't eliminate all causes of accidental death, there will always be fallout.
|
>> 1754 deaths in 2012, an astonishingly low figure in view of the miles covered. Life
>> has it's dangers but we can't eliminate all causes of accidental death, there will always
>> be fallout.
>>
I realise that no one is going to survive a high speed impact into something solid (tree etc.) but many more accidents are survivable these days IF the seatbelt is worn properly, the airbags deploy, the rear seat passenger has one on and does not kill the front seat occupants.
|
>> I realise that no one is going to survive a high speed impact into something
>> solid (tree etc.) but many more accidents are survivable these days IF the seatbelt is
>> worn properly, the airbags deploy, the rear seat passenger has one on and does not
>> kill the front seat occupants.
>>
Unfortunately a side-effect of this is to instil a false sense of security into some car users, who are then tempted into taking greater risks in the assumption that they will walk away from the crash.
I am not, however advocating that we should turn the clock back.
|
>> I am not, however advocating that we should turn the clock back.
>>
I think a nice shiny foot long (30cm) stainless steel spike in place of the steering wheel airbag might reduce mobile phone use while driving. :-)
|
>> I think a nice shiny foot long (30cm) stainless steel spike in place of the
>> steering wheel airbag might reduce mobile phone use while driving. :-)
>>
Noting front seat passengers with their feet on the dash board and drivers viewed in my mirror with a hand in the 12 o'clock position I guess the airbag safety feature might change the stats.
|
"It cant be reduced without considerably inconveniencing the huge majority. "
That is a mere supposition purporting to be a fact .
There may well be further things that can be done to further reduce road deaths and serious injuries that would not seriously impinge on our lives. I can think of quite a few that might actually. Better street lighting on motorways, more dual carriageways, more police presence on the roads for a start.
Around 2,000 death and ten times that number of serious injuries is not a small number and forgetting about the costs in monetary terms that is an awful lot of misery. If half a dozen fully laden British airliners crashed every year with total loss of life I suspect there would be more concern. We have grown to accept the level of accidents as inevitable. It isn't.
|
>> Around 2,000 death and ten times that number of serious injuries is not a small
>> number and forgetting about the costs in monetary terms that is an awful lot of
>> misery. If half a dozen fully laden British airliners crashed every year with total loss
>> of life I suspect there would be more concern. We have grown to accept the
>> level of accidents as inevitable. It isn't.
I know I've banged this drum before but we really should not conflate death with serious injury.
The latter covers everything from spinal injury, life changing amputation or brain injury to kept in overnight for observation.
|
>> "It cant be reduced without considerably inconveniencing the huge majority. "
>>
>> That is a mere supposition purporting to be a fact .
>>
>> There may well be further things that can be done to further reduce road deaths
>> and serious injuries that would not seriously impinge on our lives. I can think of
>> quite a few that might actually. Better street lighting on motorways, more dual carriageways, more
>> police presence on the roads for a start.
>>
>> Around 2,000 death and ten times that number of serious injuries is not a small
>> number and forgetting about the costs in monetary terms that is an awful lot of
>> misery. If half a dozen fully laden British airliners crashed every year with total loss
>> of life I suspect there would be more concern. We have grown to accept the
>> level of accidents as inevitable. It isn't.
Oh the old worn out statistical "crashed airliners" tack, wondered when that old garbage would be dragged out (it didn't take long for the "spike" crap to appear now did it)
By any measure, 2000 dead out of the millions of miles driven is VERY small, INCREDIBLY small. If you took the amount of money you intend to reduce that number by say, half, and put it into cancer research, screening and care you would save and prolong the lives of tens of thousands of people, many many more people are touched by the tragedy of cancer, than they are by Traffic Accidents.
You can trill away away about much more can be done, but when you actually look at the numbers, its just noise. In your attempt to spend tens millions on street lighting on motorways to save a few lives, (clearly you didn't know most deaths don't occur on Motorways) you could redirect that cash into cancer awareness and screening programs and save TENS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES.
Road deaths campaigers get on my tits, they draw attention and resources away from miriad other areas where real substantive progress could be made, in some vein attempt to reduce sone 0.000001 statistic. Try accepting that.
|
You now seem to have changed you argument from "it can't" be reduced' to we can't afford it to be reduced and we would be better spending the money elsewhere."
If there was the will and the desire to decrease road accident further it could be done. The number of deaths and injuries is not some sort of inconsequential natural level as you seem to think. Whether the government and the population have the desire to achieve this is another matter. If you read my post you will see that I am not advocating any particular program, simply pointing out that the roads can be made safer if the will to do so is there
It is not so long ago that the number of deaths and injuries was actually many times the current level but you could have made the same arguments you are making now for taking no action. In percentage terms and compared with other causes of death road accident numbers in 1965 were still only "background noise" as you so quaintly put it.
|
|
There is no doubt that Roads can be made safer, the A9 has an appalling accident rate due to its poor design. The cost to fix it (dual carriageway continuously) however will be huge and there are other priorities which also save (more) lives.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 14 Oct 13 at 08:17
|
>> You now seem to have changed you argument from "it can't" be reduced' to we
>> can't afford it to be reduced and we would be better spending the money elsewhere.">
No I'm not, what part of "its "noise" did you miss? I was merely responding to your assertion that throwing money at it will fix it. It won't, there is nothing to fix.
>Whether the government and the population have the desire to achieve this is another matter. >If you read my post you will see that I am not advocating any particular program, simply > >pointing out that the roads can be made safer if the will to do so is there
And I am pointing out that we have probably reached the point where so little improvement is possible, its time we moved our resources and attention elsewhere. And you did advocate several programs I seem to recall, Lights on motorways? enforcement, road design?
>t is not so long ago that the number of deaths and injuries was actually many times the >current level but you could have made the same arguments you are making now for taking no >action. In percentage terms and compared with other causes of death road accident numbers >in 1965 were still only "background noise" as you so quaintly put it.
And there you have neatly explained how the "noise" thing works. The level of improvement has fallen off to the point where an exponentially large percentage of effort has to be produced for no perceptible gain.
So lets move on from here, move this misguided will to do something onto something where real achievement and progress can be made.
|
>> So lets move on from here, move this misguided will to do something onto something
>> where real achievement and progress can be made.
>>
For example medical accidents, patient neglect, and hospitals acquired disease which nobody can even quantify properly, but seem likely to be in well into 6 figures of fatalities.
|
At the risk of being even more tedious
1 Nowhere have I made any assertion that the accident rates should be reduced by throwing money at it
2 I have merely pointed out that your argument that your argument that the rate cannot be reduced without inconveniencing everyone is demonstrably wrong by quoting a few examples as to how it could possibly be done. I put these forward as examples not recommendations.
3 Whether spending money on other areas like cancer research would be more worthwhile than road safety is arguable. In terms of money spent against lives saved research into cures for cancer have not been particularly successful despite the billions that have been throw into the "war against cancer".
4 Since the same factors that cause deaths and serious injuries on the roads are the same factors that cause hundreds of thousands of minor injuries and million upon millions of pounds worth of property damage in and consequential losses every year a decrease in the number of accidents has surely got to be seen as beneficial economically even if you don't see the saving of a few hundred lives a year as financially worthwhile
|
>> At the risk of being even more tedious
Well you just bang on about the damage to your fence, whole the rest of us look at the bigger picture.
|
"You can' t just say that around 2000 deaths a year is an acceptable amount. That's an awful lot of grief and misery."
Last time I did some research each KSI collision averaged out costed at £1,000,000 each so that's £2 Billion. That is taking into account everything from Police, Ambulance, Hospital, long term care and benefits etc etc. through to costs to the economy through road closures. Yes some of this comes through private sources eg insurance.
Of course this may be the propaganda that feeds the justification for speed enforcement.
|
>> Last time I did some research each KSI collision averaged out costed at £1,000,000 each
>> so that's £2 Billion.
Isn't most of that caused by the plods shutting down the trunk routes for hours if not days for "investigations". A few photographs, bulldoze the wreckage onto the hard shoulder and get things moving should be the priority. Grandstanding and job justification by the Highways Agency wombles and police is no help to anyone.
|
|
I think we've been down this road before ON so I won't bite but you are correct that costs to the economy are factored into that figure as a result of road closures to facilitate the investigation process.
|
>> I think we've been down this road before ON so I won't bite but you
>> are correct that costs to the economy are factored into that figure as a result
>> of road closures to facilitate the investigation process.
>>
It was worth a try. :-)
|
>> Last time I did some research each KSI collision averaged out costed at £1,000,000 each
>> so that's £2 Billion. That is taking into account everything from Police, Ambulance, Hospital, long
>> term care and benefits etc etc.
>>
Typical figures put out by the Ministry of Make It Up As You Go Along IMO. How much of that figure is fixed costs? Emergency personel, doctors and all the other people involved have to be paid whether they're out dealing with an accident or sitting in a cafe drinking tea.
|
|
Know what you are saying RO'R but if we take A&E as an instance then the knock on effect is that more money has to be thrown at them because they can't cope with the demand. Police could operate on lower numbers and so on.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sun 13 Oct 13 at 21:21
|
>> Know what you are saying RO'R but if we take A&E as an instance then
>> the knock on effect is that more money has to be thrown at them because
>> they can't cope with the demand. Police could operate on lower numbers and so on.
>>
Certainly accidents don't come free, but there are loads of instances where figures appear to be plucked out of thin air to show this or that costs so many millions or billions and they are never explained or challenged, just accepted as fact.
|
>> Know what you are saying RO'R but if we take A&E as an instance then
>> the knock on effect is that more money has to be thrown at them because
>> they can't cope with the demand. Police could operate on lower numbers and so on.
last time I looked, I have to say my local A&E was not full of RTA cases despite being next to the busiest motorway in Europe. There was a lot of sports injuries, and DIY injuries. Now about inventing tests and licences for them......
Edit - I also have to say I could have gone through the waiting room and thrown over half of the customers on the street and told them to ring the ruddy doctor, where they should have gone in the first place.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 13 Oct 13 at 22:36
|
One fairly constant thing about teenage road accidents seems to be that there are inevitably a group of mates in the car. Back in my days as a teenager the vast majority only had a motorbike so the highest number of people to get killed or injured was theoretically two per every vehicle involved, now it's probably five or even more if the car is overloaded.
It would be interesting to compare the stats from 30 years ago with today's figures to see if the actual percentage of accidents (as opposed to persons killed or injured) has increased. Appreciate that there are many other factors to consider though.
|
>> I took my bike test in 2002 after they introduced the written test before you
>> could go out on the road for training for the test. OK, I have not
>> done the road simulator. It wasn't rocket science. You could buy a book with all
>> the questions and answers in for the written test.
>>
>> In other countries getting a car licence is along the same idea of a pilot
>> licence where you have to do so many hours training at specific disciplines before you
>> can take the test.
>>
The practical car driving test is considerably harder than the one you and I took. The motorcycle test you took in 02 was much more demanding than the round the block piece of cake that I had to take, and today it is more difficult still. Forget the theory test, that's only ever been a waste of time but all types of practical driving test have been toughened up considerably in recent over recent years.
New drivers now have a higher level of car control and road awareness than those of more mature years did when we passed, but they still have more accidents - for the reasons several of us have stated.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Sun 13 Oct 13 at 15:15
|
Forget the theory test, that's only ever been a waste of time but all
>> types of practical driving test have been toughened up considerably in recent over recent years.
OK, you're the expert when it comes to car/motorcycle driving tests.
When it comes to lorry tests however its being dumbed down constantly, (also we don't have similar standards across the EU, and you can see the results of that every day on the M20).
First we lost the emergency braking test, then we lost the gearchanging exercise (crawler to top and back again through every gear), now in consultation stage is for drivers to be able to take the test in automatics but will qualify for manual, expect this any day.
To be fair reducing the eligibility to 18 for HGV drivers hasn't really made an impact, very few employers will touch them due to insurance issues so the problem limits itself.
The problem with poor lorry drivers of all ages causing mayhem regularly would be cured if a HGV or PSV drivers accident record was automatically linked to their digi card which every driver so licenced now has, they wouldn't be able to flit from job to job as they do leaving a trail of destruction as they would be flagged up by potential new employers, more importantly their insurers.
Usefully this info would show up when plod pulls a badly driven lorry or cecks digi after an accident, would help them to make a decision what to do with the driver at the scene.
As for car control and teenagers, i'm very much with Runfer Hump etc, far better to know how to get yourself out of trouble.
I'd like to see some compulsory skid pan training, but also included on that course to teach braking and stopping control without ABS, show the youngters just how poor stopping control can really be.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Mon 14 Oct 13 at 09:18
|
>> When it comes to lorry tests however its being dumbed down constantly, (also we don't
>> have similar standards across the EU, and you can see the results of that every
>> day on the M20).
>>
>> First we lost the emergency braking test, then we lost the gearchanging exercise (crawler to
>> top and back again through every gear), now in consultation stage is for drivers to
>> be able to take the test in automatics but will qualify for manual, expect this
>> any day.
>>
That is bordering on criminal, I passed the original HGV 1 test after driving a car for at least ten years so had a little road sense, I was still very cautious with an HGV until I got used to driving them.
|
Well, I went straight from an escort car to an artic with a week’s training and my first load was a load of zinc ingots from Leicester to Birmingham on a flat.
I hadn’t got a clue how to secure it and had never driven a loaded lorry before at all.
Compared to now, the procedure is far more complicated.
First you have to pass a test for a rigid lorry, then another for an artic.
To pass the test you first have to pass both parts of a two part theory test.
Then you have to do a practical on road test but from November 2013 will be in a loaded lorry.
This includes doing a braking exercise, and at least 10 minutes of independent driving and includes a random number of safety questions.
Assuming you pass the test you then have to pass the Initial DCPC to obtain a DQC card before you can be employed.
To do this you have to pass a case study test and then a practical test and demonstrate how to use load securing equipment to safely secure a load.
Since very few fleets can afford to run manual vehicles these days it is a sign that the HGV driving test is keeping up with the times and much harder than it ever was when I took mine.
...and a good thing too.
Pat
|
>> ...and a good thing too.
>>
>> Pat
>>
>>
That shines a different light on the matter, (for UK qualified drivers).
|
>> As for car control and teenagers, i'm very much with Runfer Hump etc, far better
>> to know how to get yourself out of trouble.
>> I'd like to see some compulsory skid pan training, but also included on that course
>> to teach braking and stopping control without ABS, show the youngters just how poor stopping
>> control can really be.
You can spot the ones with the best car control, they are the ones driving the fastest. My brother had unbelievable car control as a yoof and drove as if he was on the RAC rally. He never had a big accident but that was pure luck - people were always pulling out in front of him because they underestimated his speed, and his ability to avoid hitting them was outstanding, but at that age you just think they are plonkers and overlook the common factor.
Accident free drivers deal with trouble by not getting into it in the first place, and many if not most would freeze or just panic brake in an emergency. We all know that outside of the enthusiast category most have totally undeveloped control skills.
The vast majority of drivers do the same thing in a developing 'situation' - brake too little, too late, and forget to steer.
ABS has reduced the loss of control and the black stripes down the road, but many don't know how to get the best out of it either. That's why brake-assist was developed.
It seems perverse to argue against control skills, but until the attitude has adjusted and the observational skills have been developed, it's not the answer IMO.
|
I've never had a collision ( so far ) in my life despite having spent my formative motoring years driving like a witch on an ignited broomstick. I did though receive extra tuition ( as mentioned above on a skid pan ) and indeed from my father who was a keen and press on driver. ( he never had any accidents either in 60 odd years of motoring ) He was self -taught before passing a driving test was required.
I also got some free tuition from a police traffic patrol sergeant who caught me and a mate pulling handbrake turns on an empty snow covered supermarket car park one night. Instead of giving me/us a hard time he spent an hour or so with us showing us how to do it properly. He did though leave us with a stern warning that if he ever found us trying that sort of malarky on the road we were for the high jump !
Sorry, but I've read all the arguments in favour of not teaching additional control skills but I'm not buying it. The things I was taught by more experienced drivers when I was young have definitely, without any shadow of doubt, got me out of more trouble than they would ever have got me into.
I'm sure you'll be relieved to hear I'll leave it there ! I don't dis-respect the opposing opinions of course ( no smoke without fire and all that ) but in a straight vote I'm on the side of more driver education rather than an arbitrary raising of the driving age.
|
>> I'm on the side of more driver education rather than an
>> arbitrary raising of the driving age.
Me too. Just a different emphasis. I'm sure it's not black and white though.
|
>> I'm on the side of more driver education rather than an arbitrary raising of the driving age.
I don't support raising the driving age.
However, there's more to driver education than just improved vehicle control - IMO that will simply increase everybody's speed.
|
I am not sure if there is an issue at really. I don't know anybody who got a car at 17 apart from one of my female cousins.
It is all about the attitude of the person, some young drivers will behave like complete idiots no matter if they are 17 or 25.
A ban on entertainment systems for young drivers is a good idea, I shamefully admit that I was distracted with a conversation on the radio a few weeks back, which is why I missed my turning and that then turned into me clipping that car. Not had the radio on since!.
However how do you enforce it? It is difficult enough enforcing mobile phone use if the fact I still keep seeing drivers with a phone in their hand is anything to go by.
|
>> I am not sure if there is an issue at really. I don't know anybody
>> who got a car at 17 apart from one of my female cousins.
You need to move to the rich south. My son and his peers all had cars at 17. No bad thing, I was determined to keep him off bikes and scooters.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 13 Oct 13 at 14:30
|
Most my family are well off, it was nothing do with money, more the fact they felt they had more important things to do like go to university etc. We have such good public transport here that there really isn't that much need to drive if you work in the city centre.
I didn't pass my test until I was 26 before then I just didn't see that much need to drive. Some people see a car as a status symbol but most people see straight past that. In more rural places it is a of course a lot more common for teenagers to drive simply because there is no real public transport. Certainly not the entire city connected with a tram network and buses every couple of minutes etc.
|
|
I must be a bit thick, can someone tell me what is offensive about Rattles post ?
|
>> I wondered that too.
>>
>> Pat
>>
Maybe it was a missclick.
|
>> Maybe it was a missclick.
That scowly face was miss click, she is a right old dragon.
|
>> That scowly face was miss click, she is a right old dragon.
>>
Thanks, I thought I was getting senile, well I am, but only a little bit. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 13 Oct 13 at 17:57
|
>> I am not sure if there is an issue at really. I don't know anybody
>> who got a car at 17 apart from one of my female cousins.
Blimey, it must be more grim up north than I thought.
Most of my peer group had wheels by the time they were 18 and from what I see round here its not much different now
|
Not grim at all, we just have so many other ways of getting around a car really isn't essential unless you need to use it for work as I do. I would have thought it would be a lot more grim to have be stuck with having to pay massive insurance premiums and having not much money for anything else because there is no public transport or at least limited transport services.
Of course this is a car forum, so it will be biased towards people that lived to get their first car at 17 or 18. My sister is another person, she does travel a lot because of her job but it is mostly to London. She is 27 and again never even thought about driving.
I would say around half my friends did have a car when they got to be about 21, but certainly not at 17 or 18.
|
|
i am told the front lobel part of your brain , the bit responsible for risk and decision making isn't fully developed till you reach 25.
|
I can't help but think that half a day watching ' Russian Car Crashes ' might instil a bit of knowledge about how not to drive in these kid's minds.
Particularly the ones where work is going on to cut people out whilst uncovered bodies lie in the road.
Cruel to be kind ? I certainly reviewed my driving skills at 19 after attending my first fatal RTA, which happened to involve the decapitation of a youth my age on a combination outfit.
Ted
|
Sadly I didn't. I had four friends killed in a mini, a friend killed in a Rover when it crashed and caught fire, several friends killed on bikes, one by a barbed wire fence at 70mph, I broke my neck (literally) on a bike when I was about 20, and I watched my friend lose his leg when he clipped a skip.. and it made not a jot of difference to my idiocy.
I'm not quite sure what did sort me out, but it took time. I think I started calming down when I was about 22.
I was intent on driving beyond my skills and experience. If you had given me more of either, then I would have just gone even more beyonderer.
As I recall the *only* thing that caused me to behave or moderate my behaviour was driving through areas where traffic police were known to be common.
|
|
Actually, on reflection I think I can remember what slowed me down; I had a GS750 and almost hit a child at about 70mph on a quiet residential road. About 2 inches between wisdom and several ruined lives.
|
|
I started to drive a car full time in my thirties.My main transport was cycling and using the bus.
|
>> I am told the front lobel part of your brain , the bit responsible
>> for risk and decision making isn't fully developed till you reach 25.
>>
Is it possible to measure that in an individual?
Perhaps some kind of medical/psychological assessment should be part of the test?
|
|
Don't go there, any more silly test regarding the brain and none of us will pass.Isn't obvious when you are young you take more risk it is the nature of people.As you become older you suppose to calm down maybe.
|
>> Is it possible to measure that in an individual?
>> Perhaps some kind of medical/psychological assessment should be part of the test?
That would probably be a breach of Yuman Rights.
|
|
No no no… definitely not. I could not wait to drive. It’s not a problem for townies but for those like me who live in the country then the ability to drive a car is a necessity. The bus service is pathetic and parental assistance was limited due to work commitments. I am lucky that my best mate is five years older so he could run me around if my parents couldn’t, also when I was 17 and learning he could accompany me, we would put the L plates on and I would drive everywhere with him, even long journeys of 200 miles or more. I remember we went up to London once to visit one of his friends, my mate drove on the M4 and then somewhere just off the motorway past that flyover thing I remember him pulling into a Porsche garage, I thought he was going to have a look at the cars but no, he said your turn to drive now, shhhhh, in London?? Me?? He said it’s all about confidence, he knew where we were going and navigated well. We ended up in Barnes with no incidents but it was a bit of throwing me in at the deep end!
|
Some countries, eg Sweden I think, have a lower driving age for rural drivers.
The UK already has a precedent for special categories of driver. I understand there is a lower age limit for disabled drivers.
|
Driving test age rise considered for teenagers - commerdriver
